56 F.4th 1039
5th Cir.2023Background
- John Steven Stark, serving a sentence, received a $1,400 ARPA stimulus payment in 2021 while incarcerated.
- Stark sought adjustment of his restitution payment schedule so the payment would not be applied (he asserted it was exempt from levy and that application would violate the Takings Clause and jeopardize rehabilitative placement).
- The district court required application of the funds to restitution; Stark appealed the denial of adjustment.
- Stark did not identify a statutory exemption for the stimulus payment, did not file a §2241 petition challenging his BOP IFRP plan, and did not show exhaustion of administrative remedies in his district of confinement (he is incarcerated in Arizona).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting Stark’s exemption, takings, and due-process arguments and noting proper procedure for IFRP challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Govt) | Defendant's Argument (Stark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $1,400 stimulus payment is exempt from levy for restitution | Stimulus payments are not within the IRC exemptions cited by §3613(a); non-exempt funds may be used for restitution | The stimulus payment was exempt from levy and should not be applied to restitution | Not exempt; payment may be applied to restitution |
| Whether applying the payment to restitution constitutes a Takings Clause violation | Use of non-exempt funds to satisfy restitution is not a taking | Application of the payment effects an unconstitutional taking without just compensation | No taking under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments |
| Whether forcing payment jeopardizes rehabilitative-program participation and hence violates due process | Imposition of restitution conditions does not violate due process | Requiring payment threatens participation/placement and infringes liberty interests | Denial of program placement as consequence does not violate due process |
| Whether Stark can directly challenge the BOP’s IFRP payment plan in this appeal | IFRP plan modification requires a §2241 petition in the district of incarceration after administrative exhaustion | Stark effectively challenges the IFRP plan and seeks relief in this appeal | He cannot; must bring §2241 in district of confinement after exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hughes, 914 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 2019) (inmate must apply substantial resources received during incarceration to restitution)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. McKeithen, 226 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2000) (using non-exempt funds to satisfy judgments is not a taking)
- United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2017) (failure to pay restitution can affect rehabilitative placement)
- Driggers v. Cruz, 740 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2014) (denial or conditioning of program placement does not violate due process liberty interests)
- United States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2009) (IFRP plan disputes must be raised via §2241 in the district of incarceration after administrative exhaustion)